Theme: Regulatory and Supervisory Frameworks

Analysing the contents of the Reserve Bank of India’s biannual FSRs and the methodology of the RBI’s supervisory stress tests reveals that there is scope for improvement, specifically regarding the continuity in the tracking of certain risk drivers, the extent of commentary on the information, and aspects of stress tests.

This post presents design elements that providers can use to make the consent artefacts more effective for constrained users. These design recommendations emerge from the insights from an immersive behavioural field study we conducted with 60 constrained customers through a gamified simulation of an AA transaction.

Large gaps exist in life insurance coverage in India. The paper examines this issue through a supply-side lens by examining the two key features—the distinction between the agent and the broker model and the alignment of incentive structures with product life-cycle servicing.

Dvara Research and Final Mile are collaborating on a behavioural science informed primary study to unpack the barriers that customers currently face in engaging with and understanding consent artefacts.

Social enterprises will have to conform to much higher standards of reporting than they are conventionally used to.

In this note, we discuss how the current approach of the PCA framework is inconsistent with the objectives it seeks to achieve.

By requiring only limited public reporting on asset quality, banks in India have enjoyed a level of opacity that banks in other jurisdictions do not

An RBI Working Group has suggested that lending service providers be disallowed from providing credit enhancements such as FLDG (first-loss-default-guarantee). However, a risk-proportionate regulation of FLDG could address its risks, while allowing the ecosystem to benefit from innovation.

We presented detailed feedback on the Reserve Bank of India’s Discussion Paper on Review of Prudential Norms for Classification, Valuation and Operations of Investment Portfolio of Commercial Banks in the form of answers to the ten questions posed within the Discussion Paper.

In our response, we commend and highlight the more risk sensitive methodology and the corresponding disclosures outlined in the draft guidelines. However, we also point out that not including conduct risk under operational risk is a major lacuna.